*
No Gun, No Funeral, huh?

I wonder how Ross Hammond's
widow feels about that.

*

Let's try "No Gun Your Funeral" as the students at Virginia Tech and far too many dead convenience store clerks, dead battered and raped women, murdered homeowners in bad neighborhoods have experienced. But, that's beside the point.

We've seen "grassroots" movements funded here by George Soros. It makes it so much easier for the grassroots organizers to cash one big check than the thousands of little checks that lefties always tell us they received until an audit too often inconveniently beomes public.

I guess when you cynically view the electorate as clueless children, then duplicity becomes easier to try to pull off.

The Ross Hammond case is why Canada needs a right to carry law.

Let's assume that it's true that thousands of handguns are stolen from the legal owners every year.

Why are they stolen? Are the criminals targeting the homes with handguns or just picking them at random invasions?

If they do target homes, than the LPC is complacent - the only source of information is the registry. Do away with the registry and the problem will go away.

If the handguns are taken in random home invasions, than I can't fathom how the gun owners can be held accountable. Do away with the criminals and the problem will go away.

They are barking at the wrong bush and that's sOOOO obvious even a child can figure it.

A few days ago you could read the petition online. The first 10 or so signatures were in favour of a ban, but a quick google revealed most had ties to Liberal riding associations, Young Liberals, etc.

The next 200 or so signtures were solidly mocking, ridiculing and debunking with facts the whole notion. Some were pretty clever and one early on outed the site as coming from Bryant's riding assoc.

Yesterday the petition was pulled, cleansed, and now is unable to view.

Be careful commenting. Make your jab in the name and location field as I suspect that any "comment" will be sanitized and your name will be used as proof a ban is wanted.

No gun, no funeral. Tell that to my uncle who had his head split open with an axe by a scumbag who was just released from prison. Sadly, my uncle was a pacifist who refused to own a weapon.

Come election time in Ontario, chimpy mcliar will get no free pass on this issue. Here in the prison capital of Canada, we get to see the results of revolving door justice firsthand.

It is time that a life sentence was a sentence for life.

Where in any of that website does it claim to be anything but a "group of Canadians"? You are the ones inserting the word "grassroots".

More importantly, Mr. Steve Janke should be careful he doesn't embarrass himself too much on public radio. Janke's post is full of garbage. He
tries to make the claim that they should be registered as lobbyists showing quite definitively that he has no clue what he's talking about.

You only need to be registered as a lobbyist if you are, well, a lobbyist, i.e. trying to influcence government decisions for "payment of a fee". God help us if normal public policy advocacy required lobbyist registration.

What a joke.

I mean, take whatever position you want on the underlying issue of gun control, but Janke's post makes him look like a partisan high school sleuth.

I guess Michael Bryant and the nutroots will move to ban the Internet now?

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/247356

"I mean, take whatever position you want on the underlying issue of gun control, but Janke's post makes him look like a partisan high school sleuth."

As opposed to being a partisan juvenile scold....

I find the statistics amazing!

30% of gun crimes are committed with a legally owned but stolen firearm.

If Ontario has a population of 12,754,000 people and there are 215,000 registered handguns in the province (just to use these numbers for simplicity's sake) than that means gun thieves are somehow effectively and successfully targeting a mere 1.7 percent of the province's population!

They must either be extremely lucky or else have an excellent avenue of intelligence regarding Ontario gun owners! What are the chances eh?

(Hmmmm, or maybe they're just getting a look in that little binder tossed under the counter where you go to buy ammo. Y'know, the one that lists the name, addy, PAL#, calibre and amount of ammo that a person buys as per the Ammunition Regulation Act, 1994 of Ontario?)

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_94a20_e.htm#s4s1

Funny how none of the other provinces have a law like this. (To the best of my knowledge!)

Fun with numbers - from the website in question

"Historically, setting up the registry cost about $100 million/year over 10 years, which was less than it cost to operate the passport office over the same period. "

It was also less than it cost to send a man to the moon but what relevance is that?
I guess $100million/year over 10 years sounds like less of a "piss-away" of money than $1billion, but it's still a billion dollars that could have been used a lot more effectively to prevent crime than what this has done.

One thing the Ontario Liberal government is good at is slogans and symbolism: “Flic Off”, “No Gun No Funeral” and coming soon, “green” license plates.

But let’s not forget Ross Hammond visiting Toronto from St. Catherines, who died from multiple knife wounds inflicted by a pack of beggars:

Should we ban tourists or knives?

What about Peter Collins who was mugged near his Vancouver church by a self-described "professional panhandler."

Should we ban fists or pedestrians?

How about we ban stupid slogans, or just the stupid politicians who dream them up at the expense of meaningful action?

So Ted. This a**hole group gets money(a fee) from the Libs/dippers,and their stated goal is to influence the gubbermint to completely bans handguns from honets citizens,not the criminals, and they are not lobbyists? Ummmm....Stalin etal would be proud of you. Why are you leftards so afraid of defending yourselves,yet let the real perps off with slaps on the wrist? Kate...I think we should start a lobby to have all violent criminals who are released early from their sentences serve their parole time in a leftards house,starting with Ted.

Interesting stats according to Nationmaster (assume 32 million Canadians)

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/mor-mortality

Death as a result of assault by motor vehicle: 0.122/ million = 4
Death as a result of assault by blunt object: 0.975/million = 31
Death as a result of discharge of handgun: 0.213/million = 7
Death as a result of assault by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation: 0.884/million = 28
Death as a result of discharge of rifle, shotgun, and larger firearms: 0.457/million = 15
Death as a result of assualt by sharp object: 3.445/million = 110

So what can we conclude from this?

1. More people are killed with pillows than hand guns.
2. More people are killed with baseball bats than hand guns.
3. Knives are far and away the weapon of choice in assualting and killing someone by criminals.
4. Calling for a ban on handguns is a complete joke based on the statistics of weapons of choice involved in murder.

New slogans to consider:

No car no funeral
No bat no funeral
No knife no funeral
No pillow no funeral

What fee?

Seems to me, with all his many many many words and many updates to the post, all that Janke shows or implies is that a website was set up by some Liberal workers at an NDP location.

What we can conclude from this is that lefties are not only afraid of guns, they are afraid of what they might do with a gun.

They are transferring their hatred and violent urges onto inanimate objects and law-abiding gun-owners.

Every time a gun banner says guns are only for killing, it's because deep down inside, in places they never talk about, they know that if they had a gun, they would likely kill themselves or someone else.

Classic Liberal transference.

Make sure your handguns are turned into your local police department - unless of course you happen to live in Calgary!

Here's how you have to talk to Liberals, in this case Ted. Break it down, nice and easy like:

Saying something that isn't true or misleading, like suggesting you're something that you are not is called dishonesty.

If I say I'm selling you a bag of apples, but it is really a bag of rocks, that's called being dishonest.

In this case, the Liberals (party "A") has proposed an agenda which is purportedly being supported by this group (party "B").

By calling onself party B instead of party A that's called dishonesty.

Moreover, it's intentional dishonesty (much like the guy selling the bag of apples but giving rocks - you see Ted, rocks are cheaper to aquire than apples). So, Ted, of course the Liberals support the Liberals. What political groups want is general support, you know, from Canadians generally, like the group described. They also want the appearance of that support.

In this case they just manufactured it themselves. Get that Ted?

Sheesh, Liberals have such a hard time understanding basic concepts of honesty/dishonesty.

I shake my head in complete disbelief with these dolts that believe that a ban is the answer! These are the same a$$hole$ that champion "criminal's" rights as opposed to "victim's" rights and think that by hugging a terrorist, the problem has gone away! Rose colored glasses being worn by the stupid in la-la land have clouded their vision of what is really going on in the real world, outside their bubble!
I am getting soooooooo sick of these sh!t for brains dolts making their "statement" and displaying their lack of sound judgement. "IF" an idea jumped up and bit them in the a$$, they'd be too stupid to know it!! Yet, they insist that we all drop what we're doing and pay attention to them so we can all see how bloody STUPID they are! Sorta like hanging a LIEberal or ndp sign on their fence during election time, ... advertising their STUPIDITY!!
Disgusting!

It is odd how the answer to gun crime in Toronto is to ban gun ownership from law abiding citizens in all of Canada. Yet, Toronto panhandler violence will not be reduced by banning panhandlers within that city. This logic of the progressive mind is beyond my comprehension.

Actually, Biff, Janke has shown us something else.

He has shown that the provincial Liberal Party has a campaign to ban guns.

The brilliant Steve Janke also wows us by concluding that not only the Liberal Party but some of the members of the Liberal Party also support a ban on guns.

But then he shows us that the location of this group is or was the same location of an NDP organization, rabble.ca.

Now this concept may be a little difficult for you to grasp, but it so happens that people who are not Liberals ALSO want a ban on guns. Now, if I'm an NDPer or a non-affiliated person and I want to help ban guns am I more willing or less willing to (a) support the Liberal Party/Ontario government or (b) a group of Liberal members who are setting up a parellel group?

Think of it this way, Biff, many many Conservative Party members belong to one or more anti-equal marriage groups. They even have websites! The Conservative Party has taken a position against equal marriage.

Are they self-lobbying? or, in your words, intentional dishonesty?

I wish that there was a way to sign an anti-petition petition which would negate the original petition.

On a related note, I'd "sign" a petition banning internet petitions in general.

Typical upfront Librano style.

Lot of fires to put out today, eh Ted?

I hope you get an extra lumpy paper bag full o' you-know-what from the Lieberals via the Choo Choo Man.

After all, unlike the others you're arguably doing something.

"Historically, setting up the registry cost about $100 million/year over 10 years, which was less than it cost to operate the passport office over the same period. "

O RLY?

"Documents obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now estimate the program cost at $2 billion.
...
The Auditor General's report found other significant problems with the way the project had been handled. These included significant questions around the financial management of the project. In particular, the report stated that estimated project costs often excluded project costs incurred by other agencies, such as the RCMP and provincial governments, giving a false impression of real cost. Problems were likewise reported with how funds were requested from Parliament, with 70% of funds requested through "supplementary estimates," a method intended for unanticipated expenditures and requiring only a one-line statement to Parliament on the purpose of the request. In comparison, only 10% of funds for all other programs in the department were requested in this way over the same period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry

I sure am glad that an online encyclopedia containing vast amounts of information exists at my fingertips :-)

One explanation why the Canadian Firearms Centre has been such a colossal failure is that the people running it were a bunch of affirmative action hires.

From the 2006 Employment Equity Act Annual report we learn that the CFC, a new government agency created in the post-merit era not burdened with legacy white males, had the following breakdown:

-303 employees
-68% women
-6.9% aboriginal
-9.9% disabled
-3.6% visible minorities

All of the above are significantly higher than the core public service average, with the exception of viz mins, which can be explained by the local demographics of the rural based CFC HQ.

The registry is a technical tool which should have been planned, designed, and maintained by highly trained engineers and computer scientists. It wasn't, and the cost to taxpayers was in the billions.

Ted,

do you think there's a material difference between a party member, you know someone who could have as much involvement in the party as donating the 10 dollars for the membership,

and party organizers/executives?

You know, the ones responsible for making decisions?

Ted?

I guess if Stephane Dion went out and made statements, one could argue that he's just a "citizen" and therefore we shouldn't necessarily attribute statements he makes to the Liberal party.

Course that wouldn't be honest would it?

Why would these senior Liberal executives, who are members of a party who have close to a hundred seats in parliament and are the official opposition, put on their site that they wish to
"ADD THIER VOICE" to this debate???

Wouldn't that imply they were members of a group that previously had no voice at the table Ted?

You know, as opposed to having the principal voice on this issue, the ones leading the charge in Parliament?

From the "who we are" portion:

"That’s why we are adding our voice to call on Stephen Harper..."

Adding our voice??

Here's a little reality check, Ted.

Try inserting the words "executive members of the Liberal party" after the words "we",

and see if it makes sense.

Course those words are conspicuously absent, and that is precisely the point, isn't it Ted?

Ted?

Biff, relax. We're talking about a website, man.

Holy cow. Good thing it's the weekend. Get yourself a beer pronto, buddy.

No Gun? Your funeral!

If the far left ever get complete power in this country,it won't just be the common criminal you have to worry about. Chances you might have to protect yourself from the leftist friends like these,

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/08/afa-attacks.html#readfurther

Gates of vienna has got the low down on these nice folks.

I apologize,

I didn't realize that your fifteen line comment above was "relaxed" so as to not necessitate more relaxing (not responding) on my part.

Nor was I under the impression that your comment(s) made on Janke's site were equally "relaxed".

I'll try and keep that in mind in the future.

Glad to know it, Biff.

Myself, I've bashed enough conservative butts for one week and am off for my own beverage of choice. Have a nice weekend, folks.

And remember, it could always be worse.

This group of conservatives (a branch of an organization that Dick Cheney started up a while ago, incidentally but maybe not coincidentally) could have their way and install a Bush "President-for-life" allowing Bush to do "his duty to himself, his country, and his God" and not have to worry about all this inconvenient democracy stuff.

I don't know why that link didn't work. Here it is. Scary scary stuff.

64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cnnnSRimWmcJ:www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php%3Fid%3D1208571+%22president+for+life+bush%22+site:familysecuritymatters.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Link to the link in case that doesn't work for you: www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4022

No Liberals, Know Peace

is this not the way of the libs?

I seem to recall another group who tried to present themselves as a small group of ordinary women who were upset at the cuts to SWC.

lo and behold, it was found that they worked for SWC.

Of course, none of that was present on the site...just "the women are angry!!"

typical

So the site is located at the same place as rabble.ca, a group that is most assuredly not the Liberals, and the website was designed by some Liberals... and no one here is smart enough to figure out that maybe just maybe Rabble and NDPers might not want to be seen supporting the Liberal Party but they will support this initiative?

This isn't all that different from what the federal LIEberals did with the "Coalition for Gun Control" and their favourite mouthpiece, Kookier; they funded her little group to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions), so they could "advise" them on how to best implement their scheme, and sent her to the UN to be "Canada's voice on gun control."

It always amazes me when someone says theres no reason to own a firearm other than a police officer, security guard or soldier. Do they not think their own lives or their own family's lives are not worth defending?

Ted,

I'm just wondering out loud here, so bear with me...

Liberals and NDP(?) sharing the same address? It appears that was back in 2006. Calendar says 2007 now.

I don't think I'd really want to do that and let the "opposition" see who I'm corresponding with with. Maybe if I was jointly involved with them on a "project" and even then, carefully.

If you want to deflect (smoke and mirrors), that's OK. You're allowed. Whether it's the Liberals and/or NDP. It doesn't matter.

The Liberals (apparently) or at least (apparently) some high profile ones, have (apparently) gotten busted with their name on the bag....err...domain registry (gotta hate Registry's now, eh?), addresses and phone numbers.

The Dippers (conceivably) can chuckle and (realistically) voters will examine and decide on Oct 11. Given the revelations in the last couple of years of deceit, etc. It's looking hard to spin this one.

LOL, IF..if this was a Dipper "Burn" of the Liberals, I'll give them credit for a slick and (apparently) untraceable (to them) move.

If Mr. Bryant, et al can give a reasonable and honest explanation, I'll hear it out and give it fair consideration.

Taking e-mail addresses is a "nice" way to compile lists (either for solicitation or re-sale). IMHO, I find it rather distasteful that it (the website) "appears" to gather that information under the guise of a "Concerned Citizen's Group" instead of openly and transparently.

Again...don't mind me, I'm just wondering out loud. Freedom of Thought hasn't been banned yet.

Check my latest update. There is every reason to believe that the address is not accurate on the registration information.

As for a Dipper burn? Not likely. I did a reverse IP address lookup and the IP address is associated with Marc-Andre Gendron, the VP of Communications for the Young Liberals. There is no obvious way to fake that. It's much more likely that the address is wrong, with Liberals trying to establish a link to the NDP.

Bush, President for Life?? Bring it on!!
Thanks Ted, for making my weekend.

"This group of conservatives (a branch of an organization that Dick Cheney started up a while ago, incidentally but maybe not coincidentally) could have their way and install a Bush "President-for-life" allowing Bush to do "his duty to himself, his country, and his God" and not have to worry about all this inconvenient democracy stuff."

Ted, I await your reponse to tomorrow's Chavez post with anticipation.

In the meantime, I have a wager for you. I'm putting 5K on the table right now, that by 2009 there will be a new president in the White House.

Easy money, Ted. Don't trip over yourself taking me up on it.

Ted, have you reached adulthood?

Interesting Steve.

LOL, so it's possible the "burn" just needs to switch the order of names?

I'm curious to see what the domain correction, if required, turns into.

The intrigue of mysteries...

No Liberal's, No Corruption

Ted,

The Liberals are against same sex marraige too! At least they voted for the continued ban....then they voted differently! Flip, flop and fly. Even martin was aginst same sex marraige. So is he a conservative now?

BTW...if the Liberals want a gun ban so bad why do they support terrorist groups. I know I keep bringing this up but you disappear when I do.

C'mon Ted. Do you, like the Liberal Party of Canada, support terrorism? ie; tamil tigers, sikh extremists, hezbollah,hamas...and those are only the ones we know of. The question is out there Ted.

Besides, Dalton and his Ag are blaming their total lack of effectiveness controlling crime in Ontario on any boogegyman they can. That is the definition of cowardice. If they were doing their job, wouldn't be an issue would it?

Re: "30% of gun crimes are committed with a legally owned but stolen firearm"

Do they know what it takes to legally obtain, store, and own a handgun in Canada? The legal gun owners aren't the problem.

This statistic is regularly trotted out by the "ban all handguns" people (ie: the Liberals). Note the difference between FIREARMS, and HANDGUNS. If someone can show me a statistic that shows that 30% of HANDGUN crimes are committed with a legally owned but stolen HANDGUN, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, it's just another example of blatant misuse of statistics in order to mislead.

What upsets me most about the "ban all handguns" bullshit from the, mostly Liberal, politicians, is that it so blatantly uses serious problems with gun violence to score political points, while at the same time doing absolutely squat to deal with the real problem. Disgusting.

Pretty much sums up why I could never vote Liberal - even if they seemed to share every single one of my values and agree on every one of my issues, I'd know they wre lying. Nothing they say is even worth listening to.

I would like to click on to the sight and leave a comment but I am afraid that if I do and fill in the rest it will be considered as a vote in their favour

This is so typical of leftist thinking.
In Ontario they want to bring in a law that if one is caught street racing their car will be crushed to something the size of a clothing trunk.

- punish the car

Now they purpose a 50 thousand dollar fine for speeding 50 km over the limit.

- punish the wallet

They have the big move on now to ban all handguns for a few shootings by Jamaican imported negroes

- punish someone else who happens to be a law abiding gun owner.

It's never the guilty part who is actually punished and that is the only kind of punishment that is effective.

What do all slaves have in common
They don't own guns

No private gun ownership --- no freedom

eyes open,

You are right.

Don't click on that sight.

you can go to the site and see it.

you would have to manually fill in the blanks.

If you don't go see, you'll have a hard time understanding what's happening.

If you don't understand you're not informed. If you aren't informed you risk making "uninformed" decisions.

Uninformed decisions don't help you, your family, your friends or your future.

Followed Ted's link....wow - Chavez does it and out comes this nonsense propagated by the likes of our friend Ted...I understand the liberal's thought's on banning all guns though. If I were a thief and I wanted to steal from someone...I wouldn't want them armed.

I said it earlier, I'll say it again...."Wile E. Coyote had irreversible damage done to his mental health by the Road Runner, we need to salvage what we can at this point".....engaging Ted is irrational.

You will never get the time back in your lives, folks.

Think of him as an animated cartoon character, he will outlive you.

*
"Aaron said... Let's assume that it's true that thousands
of handguns are stolen from the legal owners every year."

sure, assume... that's what the fiberals do. let's further
assume that extra-terrestrial beings are responsible for
half of those thefts...

why not just use the goddamn numbers... it's all right
there in the miraculous 2 billion dollar farmer bob rifle
registry... right?

anyone?

*

neo

The overwhelming sound of silence should be the answer you are looking for.

LOL

If the left trully believes that simply banning stuff rids us of the problem,why don't they just ban criminal behavior?

Twits.

Canadian Observer: "why don't they just ban criminal behavior?"

Brilliant! Now pass the Guinness please ;-) TGIF

The older I get, the more I figure the intellectually deficient lefties are an argument in favour of eugenics. I think I'll start a movement to sanitize the gene pool. Pass the liberal-shrivelling chlorine, please.

As I have said elsewhere, the left sees crime which hasn't happened yet - but might - as a far greater insult to society than a crime which actually happened. A bullet unfired is worse than a dead human - and a murderer in jail is to be swathed in rights and pampered and pitied for the evils of society that made him kill, because he might do it again otherwise.
They are nothing else if not consistent.

The latest fashion for British school kids = Stab proof uniforms. Because they haven't banned knives - yet.

http://tinyurl.com/28sre7

Has anyone come up with a Liberal-proof uniform yet?

As usual, Ted (Canadian Cerberus) manages to give the impression that he just does not get it. When you are trying to lobby for a certain legislative agenda, which Bryant and his fellow Liberals have an absolute right to do, it is quite impressive to actually do so as part of a grassroots non-partisan organization. It is far less impressive to do so as part of a partisan organization, even one that is grassroots. To pretend to be non-partisan when you are really partisan is sleezy and dishonest.

You can download an MP3 copy of Adler's radio show where they discussed the No Gun No Funeral website

http://www.mediafire.com/?difm3x1fndg

I sent this comment to this bonehead of a liberal.

"How about we stop criminals from stealing the guns and bringing them across the border it would all go away. But until you acknowledge that in Toronto this is a black problem you'll never fix it.
And consider this, if we could only remove cars from roads we wouldn't have any more accidents. You guys are a bunch of pinheads!!!"

Another group of silly liberal idiots who think more stupid gun control laws will save lives and i suppose they will want people to turn in their guns and get ice capade tickets or pink monkey toys or some other rediclous idea and CANADA already have strict gun laws and still these stupid liberal wussietards that go by dumb names want more LET THEM PUT OUT A FIRE WITH GASOLINE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS

How about no round balers, no funerals? Those machines count for a good size share of deadly farm accidents according to the US's NIOSH occupational safety website.

"Historically, setting up the registry cost about $100 million/year over 10 years, which was less than it cost to operate the passport office over the same period." -- Well, I should hope so. There must be 100 times more people getting passports than registering guns -- to say nothing of passports being somewhat useful. What a ridiculous defense.

Just know that before we had the long gun registry, only the people the I wanted, knew I had guns. The day before the liberals saw it fit to make me a criminal if I didn't register the guns, I went a got a picture taken. The photographer knew I had guns. When I got the permit back my postman knew I had guns. I paid by check - my bank knew I had guns.

Time for renewal (a few months ago ... free). I got a letter from the RCMP - another postman knows. In case the postman missed it the first time ... I got a friendly reminder. Then a trip to the photographer (same place, different people) ... to get pictures again specific to the permit. I think we got a new postman in the mean time, but if not ... third hint for the same postman.

So - at a minimum (not counting the gov't) I have 4 people who didn't know I had guns, that know now. The max - who the hell knows.

Handguns? I can't even imagine the number of low life civil servants that have access to owner information. So if gun owners are being targeted by criminals who really is at fault? If the numbers are that skewed to gun owners getting robbed, should that not set off alarm bells?

Kate - I'd take that bet, but it's easy money.

The next president won't be inaugurated (unless Bush is assassinated or impeached) until the end of January, 2009.

:)

how one ass kan mayke a post?

"Save a life, Ban Liberals"

Some one needs to tell Boshi Bryant and his brownshirt quislings that Civilian handguns are not going to disappear.

A) It's a federal constitutional jurisdiction

B) Confiscating or rendering legally owned private property worthless through legislating makes the government liable to compensate owners for the market value of their property....should take about $300 million or so.

C) A ban will drive the now legitimate market/demand underground...bans have worked so well with drugs, gambling, alcohol and prostitution haven't they?

D) There isn't a Liberal poli alive capable of pulling this off constitutionally or democratically, without bringing the government into liability and ill repute.

E) Only a portion will comply and there will be more hand guns out of control of the police than ever before.

F) Bryant is about the lowest from of life that ever inhabited a human skin. His political agenda is philistine and uncivil and he attracts only vulgar, abnormal intellects and depraved cronies to his hackneyed crusades. Bryant is widely distrusted as a totally unprincipled neurotic political climber and will go nowhere after October. The Gun ban drumming is a desperate political misdirect to avoid impending political obscurity.....the last Liberal who used this con in a election platform is now out of politics

The Globe & Mail reported that 70% of those accused of homicide using a gun in Toronto last year were out on bail, or under court order.

This is the Liberal solution. Catch and release.

It seems to me that WL is right. If you want to get rid of violent crime, ban Liberals.

Actually, on second thought, arrest their leaders as accessories to the crime.

You're gonna love this one WL:

Remarks by
The Honourable Michael Bryant
Attorney General of Ontario
Opening of the Courts
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Toronto

"The challenges facing our justice system in 2007 are the impervious forces of legal populism"

Michael Bryant thinks the most important challenge facing the justice system is law-abiding citizens and their ignorant opinions.

"The forces of legal populism are those that would tear asunder the basic principle of judicial independence; that would co-mingle the legislative/executive and judicial branches of the state. The forces of legal populism seek to do by partisan gavel what can't be done by parliament; to deflect accountability to the elected by heaping faux accountability upon those appointed to be independent. Legal populists use the friendly maxim of "judicial accountability" to advance their cause. Their card tricks are clever statistical report cards, brazen flaunting of the sub judice rule, importation of the American judicial confirmation process, and ham fisted unilateral changes to the federal judicial appointments advisory committees."

Didja see that? When factual evidence of a broken justice system is presented to AG Michael Bryant he dismisses it as "clever statistical reports". Kids, drop calculus now because your own government will make fun of you for using it.

"The Law Reform Commission of Canada may be defunct, but the Ontario Law Commission is finally back after a decade's hibernation, and it's better than ever. The new Commission has a new governance and funding structure, a firewall against future hostile governments."

Unreal. The elected representatives of the people are considered "hostile" to the legal profession, which, in turn, must be protected from the people by a "firewall". Can we call this Bryant's "Firewall Speech"?

" Stop and consider for a moment: A year ago at this ceremony, we paused to consider tragedies that took place at the hands of guns, during the summer, autumn, winter, and boxing day, 2005. Today we appreciate a more peaceful and safe 2006 in Ontario, thanks to the efforts of those who work to keep us safe. "

When he says Ontario he means Toronto, of course, in which case he would be correct in noting a random drop in murder. Yet Ottawa's murder rate increased; does Bryant not consider people outside of the GTA Ontarians? Youth crime increased in Ontario 2006. Property crime and violent crime in Ontario remained unchanged from 2005 to 2006, so it appears Bryant's claim of a safer Ontario is not especially factual:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070718/d070718b.htm

"Those who brought the revolutionary Human Rights Commission to Ontario 44 years ago and those who have laboured to make it work since will forever have my admiration."

Ontario Liberals oppose free speech, pass it on!

"Per capita and otherwise, Ontario's legal aid budget is much larger than any other province, and, per capita, triple that of some provinces."

This is something to brag about?

" Be that as it may, there is another tale of another justice system. I ask that we consider the tale of two justice systems that we live with. One is the tale delivered here at this ceremony. The nature of this gathering is to highlight solutions and accomplishments.

The other tale can easily bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is a tale scorned by many who actually work in the justice system, but it is a reality at the kitchen tables and in living rooms of our nation.

The other justice system, the other tale, is the one printed in newspapers and broadcast by radio and television newscasts. The other justice system is, by definition, newsworthy. This is the justice system portrayed by the media to the public. Ipso facto, it's the justice system that the populace sees regularly, so it's a justice system we in this room must take seriously.

As I said at this Ceremony two years ago, there exists two solitudes: our justice system, on the one hand, and the media, on the other."

Just so we're clear, folks, Liberal AG Bryant appears to believe Liberal newspapers and Ontario citizens are part of some conspiracy to defame Ontario lawyers and judges. We - not the greedy lawyers and Liberal appointed judges - are the problem, according to the classy and reasonable Mr. Bryant.

"Let me say it is an honour to serve in this golden age, with the Chief Justices before me, the judiciary represented in this room, my truly esteemed colleagues at the bar, the policing community and their Chiefs, and the remarkable professionals I work with in my office, and the thousands in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Particular thanks to the living legend and Deputy Attorney General Murray Segal, and to the living legend, solicitor to the stars, and my better half, Susan Abramovitch.

Thank you. "

Bryant thinks we are in a "golden age" of justice here in Ontario; does anyone besides shady lawyers agree? Who is this "legend" Murray Segal Bryant refers to? Would you believe he is was the crown prosecutor who arranged the sweetheart deal for Karla Homolka:

"The first Homolka deal was negotiated and consented to by Murray Segal, Director of the Crown's criminal law office, on behalf of then Ontario Attorney General, the Honourable Marion Boyd. It received judicial action and approval by Mr. Justice Francis Kovacs of the Ontario Court General Division on July 6, 1993, in the short, speedy trial of Homolka. The trial lasted mere minutes. The deal was weighted heavily in Homolka's favour and was strictly adhered to by Mr. Justice Kovacs. The joint submission of both the Crown and defence counsel, and Mr. Justice Kovacs' reasons on sentencing, laid bare the horror of this case and the Ontario Attorney General's handling of it.

Mr. Justice Kovacs' adjudication and ruling complied with the intent of the prosecution's deal and its forgiveness of Homolka. As an experienced justice of the Ontario court, Mr. Justice Kovacs' judgments and judicial action are enigmatic. His adjudication had the effect of largely exonerating Homolka, exempting her from punishment. Judicial action shielded her and insulated her from the penalty suited to her crimes.
...
This encumbrance on his judicial obligation is made clear in the submissions of Mr. Murray Segal, the Crown prosecutor during the Homolka trial, who said that:

... the Crown is satisfied that Karla Bernardo had the necessary intent and involvement to found murder charges,... but as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, you have before you manslaughter charges...
Four of Ontario's highest-ranking law officials unanimously agreed that there was "a proper basis in law" for charging Karla Homolka with aggravated sexual assault in the "extremely grievous" attack on a young woman who can be identified only as Jane Doe...

Blatchford continued:

... despite the fact there was evidence to charge the 25-year-old, now serving the 12-year sentence that is the result of her original plea bargain, the senior officials advised the police not to bother. ... when one of them, Niagara Regional Police Chief Grant Waddell, indicated he was prepared to lay a charge regardless of the high-powered advice, ... he was told the government would "stay" the charge - in effect refuse to prosecute it.

Blatchford also reported that, in Treleaven's memo addressed to Inspector Vince Bevan and Detective-Sergeant Tony Warr, Treleaven made it clear that:

... he was writing on behalf of Assistant Deputy Attorney General Michael Code and his two fellow regional Crowns, Leo McGuigan and Jerry Wiley, and that he had assistance from Murray Segal, ... and George Walker, Homolka's lawyer.
...
Homolka's trial before Mr. Justice Kovacs was riddled with extraordinary circumstances and statements that reveal the special treatment accorded Karla Homolka. Crown prosecutor Murray Segal, in his submissions on sentencing, articulated the Crown's position:

The Crown's assessment, based on a review of such psychiatric evidence, is that absent the influence and association of someone whose behaviour bears the characteristics of what truly may be one of this province's and the country's most feared individuals, she is unlikely to re-offend."

Who is Susan Abramovich? Not only is she the AG's wife, she's also a client! Merely a coincidence, you see, that her law firm and hubby's old law firm get loads o' business from the McGuinty gang:

http://myweb.dal.ca/fraserdt/privacy/dontdatehimgirl.pdf

"The former law firm
of Ontario Attorney General
Michael Bryant and the firm
where his wife is employed
were among the highest paid
private firms retained by the
ministry last year.
McCarthy Tetrault, where
Mr. Bryant was a lawyer before
entering politics, was paid
$487,000 for its services, the
ministry’s fourth highest legal
bill. The attorney general’s
wife, Susan Abramovitch, is a
partner at Goodman and Carr,
which billed $442,000, the sixth
highest total

Andrew: Good catch...Bryant's rhetoric is the thing Freud could write volumes on filled with manipulative transference,sociopathic, narcissistic and megalomanic inferences....the man is a ideological neurotic and a plutocratic statist.

Get the political ash heap ready for this arrogant commissar.

As always liberals will save sinking ship by drilling more hole to let the water out proves their idiots

From nepotism to outright corruption is the operative with Liberals at all levels, federal and provincial.
Are we sick of it yet or are we going to allow more of the same?
Are there enough floundering in the cesspool in and around Toronto to keep them in power or will our muckraking put them out to pasture?

Just imagine some liberal wussietards deciding to set up a stand and urg someone to turn in thier guns and get ice capade tickets YEAH LIKE SOMEONE WILL WANT TO TURN IN A $500 HANDGUN TO WATCH SOME WACKOS JUMP AROUND ON THE ICE. SCREW LIBERALS SQUAWK SQUAWK